A lot of these changes have been in the test versions for a while, so I'm a bit surprised at such strong reactions. Some of the changes are my ideas and some are Pepe's. Ultimately Pepe is the one who implemented everything, so I can't speak to all the changes. Some may be too extreme, but the fastest way to zero in on the best balance imo is to make a larger change and then dial it back if necessary, rather than doing lots of small incremental changes.
The greyhound/fido change was my idea. You can read the reasoning on the google docs page so I won't repost the whole thing here. While the values may need tweaking I think the general idea was sound. I thought greyhounds were really boring tactically to use and to fight against (in that if you used them right you never really interacted directly with the enemy units), and it felt like they broke the game's internal logic in that they had the attributes of an artillery unit without the decreased mobility, which felt completely broken to me, although yes, there were still ways to deal with them (air, rocket arty). The -20% cost should make them viable as a main battle tank kind of unit. No, they're not a hard counter to goliaths anymore, but they're a lot more effective against regular armies, and there's still the penetrator. The idea wasn't to nerf them so much as to change their role from sniper tank to battle/skirmish tank. With the reduced range and cost their usefulness will be a bit less variable depending on map type (moon vs porc).
PepeAmpere wrote:Conquistador all weapons damage lowered -20 %
I dont know... may i ask why
it's been this way since somewhere around 1.79g or so. Before that Core and Arm cruisers had about identical theoretical dps but in practice the core cruiser missed 1/2 to 2/3 of shots. Core sea wasn't really viable in large part because of this. And in Arm mirror matches, most game outcomes were determined by the railgun cruiser because it was so damn good against destroyers, which to me should be more the role of capital ships. I think the sea gameplay has really benefited from this change.
Godde wrote: PepeAmpere wrote:AIR
- ! all refuel times tripled
- ! repair rate of airpads and carriers decreased by 75 % (800 -> 200) and airfields by 33 % (300 -> 200)
This also seems to come right out of the blue. Strong air have been the staple of NOTA and now you have to perform micro to repair your airplanes?
This change has been in since 1.79p. I know it sounds like a really drastic change, but I don't think it's as bad as it sounds. It does slow down how frequently you can do airstrikes, but most of the wait time between strikes has always been on the travel time to and from the target. This just increases the time by about 10-15 seconds, depending on the unit. It does mean that massing air is a bit more expensive because of the extra ~800 metal you'll have to spend on airpads. I can see how it could potentially be more of an annoying change than anything though, but I thought it seemed ok from what I played.
PepeAmpere wrote: Tornado/Voodoo and Hawk/Vamp get flares (salvo 1, reload 0.1, effeciency 0.7, delay 0.1) Hawk/Vamp - HP lowered to 75 % (450/440 -> 338/330), stay stealth but cloak cost increased 4x (7 -> 28) and its default OFF
Also some big balance changes.
The tornado/voodoo were way worse than t1 fighters before, and there was no reason you would ever have wanted to build them in any circumstances (well, unless there was no land to build an airport I guess). The hawks/vamps may be a little bit too powerful now with the flares at current settings, but it can always be tweaked back a bit. In terms of gameplay, the idea was to differentiate stealth fighters and interceptors a bit, since it felt like the stealth fighter with its high hp kind of eclipsed the interceptor's role as a more heavily armed fighter and bomber killer.
Godde wrote: PepeAmpere wrote:GROUND
- Indian +20 % acceleration (0.018 -> 0.0216)
- Indian -20 % (weaker) rear armor (1.6 -> 1.92 = 160% recieved dmg -> 192% recieved dmg)
- Indian +10 % damage (340 -> 374)
- Panther build time increased +15 % (4453 -> 5121 = 0:22 -> 0:25)
- Bulldog +10 % fire range (500 -> 550) and bigger mass (2000 -> 2500)
- Bulldog build time lowered on 75 % (14661 -> 10995), which means 73 -> 54 seconds with full resources income (35 for Indian, 42 for Goliath)
- fat tanks (Reaper, Bulldog, Goliath) able to crush cheap tech1, Krogoth, Pod and Bug Queen are able to crush all tech1
Also big balance changes.
I don't know if the indian needed that buff or not, but I think the bulldog change was definitely a good one. There are so many hard counters to bulldogs that I can't see it being a problem.
PepeAmpere wrote: Pyro, Zeus, Warrior, H.A.K. moved to Medium armor class where they should belong (from crazy places they were before)[/list]
What is the role of the Warrior and the HAK? Are they supposed to replace Peewees and AKs? Going from light armour class to medium might just do that as they are gonna take alot less damage from alot of stuff.
I thought that Warriors and HAKs were supposed to be heavier and slower variants that excelled later in the game rather than being an outright upgrade.
I'm with you on this one. I could see the argument for zeus having medium armor, although I'm not sure I would agree with it, but for the others it's a really drastic change that also seems arbitrary. In terms of consistency, it's weird because no infantry sized kbots (until now) have armor. Only the largest kbots (crabes, sumos, cans, oddities, raptors) and tanks have armor. If they did need to be tougher, why not increase hp instead of changing armor category? This will make lasers and emgs terrible against these units, and mean you need to use rockets or heavy lasers against them. It feels arbitrary.
PepeAmpere wrote:Splinter (core sabot transportable tower) damage increased (460 -> 690) and fixed basic default dmg
This change also worries me a bit and I'm not sure it was really necessary. Splinter 1 shotting hammers/rockos seems a bit overkill, and it also seems like it might take away from the uniqueness of the Arm rocketbox by giving the Core an equally useful equivalent. The default damage being lower was actually intentional since all railgun/gauss/sabot type weapons did reduced damage to buildings.
Godde wrote:I'm very conservative with NOTA balance. I think it have been fine in most cases and that Core and ARM have their differences. However it doesn't feel like the factions are getting differentiated by these updates but rather that they approach eachother in similarities.
But I guess that since both PepeAmpere and Thor is doing this together that you have a vision for the game.
It seems that you want to make all units viable and add more units to NOTA. I'm not sure I want that because I think NOTA balance is just fine as is but the changes could turn out for the better.
I think that's a valid criticism that the factions are becoming a bit more similar, at least regarding the greyhound/fido change. That wasn't the goal, but I think rather a side effect. One of the main principles of nota was always internal consistency, in that weapons, ranges, and armor types should be consistent between units, and greyhounds have bothered me for a long time because they didn't really adhere to the same rules as other units (that is, it was a fast unit on a medium sized tank chassis yet somehow it had way, way more range than the longest ranged tanks). I didn't like how it affected gameplay, but I can see how you could like the struggle to build up a critical mass while facing attrition from air and arty. So while the grayhound's unique combination of range and speed did make the factions more different, I feel like it did so in a way that compromised the consistency of the game and led to situations that just felt broken, when you did get that critical mass up.
I don't see anything wrong with making nonviable units viable (such as seaplane fighters), as long as they remain niche units that don't seriously impact the overall game balance. I tend to be pretty conservative myself when it comes to the game, and I know Pepe is too, but I guess everybody has their own definition of what that means. It's true that trying too hard to perfectly balance everything can have the result of making it feel bland and uninteresting, but I don't think that's in danger of happening yet to nota.